Firstly,
I do believe that there are many religions in the world today and even though I
believe, as a Christian, that Christ Jesus is the only way to salvation, I
still cannot say that a religion is better than another because that is left
for the Almighty God to decide.

These books listed above carry
numerous claims against the entirety of Christianity and in order to debunk
Christianity, these Authors contradict themselves or what they believe in,
misquote sources and add words to a misunderstood aspect of Christianity so
that the reader develops a very strong hatred for Christianity and if possible,
the followers of the doctrine.

I will first and foremost, be
addressing the book “Israel and the prophecies of the Holy Qur’an” by Ali Akbar.
I felt so disappointed after reading this book that in fact, I felt that the
name he gave the book was a mistake; he, instead, should have named the book:
“Debunking Christianity” if not, what does the name “Israel and the prophecies
of the Holy Qur’an” have to do with debunking Christianity? Why those attacks
on Christianity? If a Christian says anything against Islam, they [Muslims]
immediately give the person a name- “Islamophobic bigot”- not minding the fact
that they do the same criticism to others. This man [Ali Akbar] focused solely
on trying to debunk Christianity and in most instances, he, misunderstanding
what he was trying to refute, condemns a particular belief [Trinity] as
polytheism even though in actual sense, it is strict monotheism.

On page 155 he said:

“I would like to request my Muslim brothers and Sisters not
to look upon this book as a fairy tale and discard it but read it again and
again WITH A TRUE ISLAMIC MIND...” Why should the Muslim readers read it over and over again
with an “Islamic mind” and expect them to know the truth? You [Muslims] accuse
Christian apologists of “bigotry” i.e. not wanting to listen to other people’s
opinion- when you even urge them to read in a biased “Islamic mind”. Why not
with a “true unbiased mind” and see if many of the readers will not note your
blatant errors... I hope Mr. Ali would read this book – especially this
chapter- and see the very refutation he never taught existed!

ANSWERS

He said “Christianity was in fact spread by the Roman Emperor Constantine the
Great, some 325 years after the death of Jesus. He went forth WITH A CROSS IN ONE HAND AND A SWORD IN THE OTHER TO
CONVERT PEOPLE TO CHRISTIANITY...” He also said in the same page “CHRISTIANITY WAS SPREAD BY THE SWORD not
Islam as they would have people believe” [Page 106- Appendix]

Since Mr. Ali does not believe in a
single word in the Bible [even though he used it in trying to prove his
prophet- Chapter 1] so I would be using much of history and little of the
Bible. He said “Christianity was spread by the sword and not Islam as they
[Christians] would have people believe” which explains the “Cross in one hand
and sword in another hand” stuff he was saying. Usually, I’m not an Anti Islam
person or a person that is concerned about attacking Islam but for the Sake of
the claim he made and the readers out there, I’ll first of all, prove that true
Christianity was never spread by the sword and I’ll turn the table round by
showing Mr. Ali that Islam was indeed the one with the sword not Christianity.

Christians, in the past, were a set of hated people who were
heavily persecutes [along with some Jews] and Christianity was, in fact, given
a name in ancient Rome- Superstito [Meaning, the superstition] and underwent
trials for not worshiping and offering public sacrifices to their gods.

“Consequently, to get rid of the
report, Nero[the Roman Emperor from around 64 A.D.] fastened the guilt and
inflicted the most exquisite TORTURE on a class HATED for their abominations
CALLED CHRISTIANS by the populace. Christus [Jesus
Christ], whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [Crucifixion] during the reign of
Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most
mischievous superstition [obviously, he
was talking of the resurrection which he discredited as superstition even
though the Jews {at that time or perhaps, some now} admit[ted] that his tomb
was indeed empty—and so created the rumour that the disciples stole the body
from the tomb], thus checked for the moment again broke out not only in
Judaea, the first source of the evil [the
Resurrection, which he regards as superstition, is what he refers to as
“evil”], but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every
part of the world find their centre and
became popular [can Mr. Ali see how
Christianity became popular through the resurrection? Was anyone with cross in
one hand and sword in the other as he claims?]. Accordingly, an arrest was
first made of all who pleaded guilty, then upon their information, an immense
multitude was convicted not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of
hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to THEIR DEATHS. Covered
with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed
to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt to serve as a nightly
illumination when daylight had expired...” In fact, if Mr. Ali were a
person with feelings in his heart, he would surely realize that Christianity
[as the Bible reveals] was indeed founded upon persecution – Starting from the
execution of Jesus. [NOTE: This man {Cornelius Tacitus} was in NO WAY a Christian and
from the way he wrote this note, he obviously did not have an ounce of
consideration for Christianity and there is a saying that goes “If the defender
and the prosecutor agree over an issue, that issue is most likely to be
true”]

“... After the great fire at Rome
[during Nero’s reign]... Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a
sect professing a new mischievous religious belief” [can Mr. Ali see that Christianity was indeed preached and spread
before the birth of Constantine?]

Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:

“you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in
sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper.
It is not possible to lay down any rule which can be applied as fixed standard
in all cases of nature. No search should be made for these people when they are
denounced and found guilty must be punished, with the restriction, however,
that the party DENIES HIMSELF TO BE A CHRISTIAN AND SHALL GIVE PROOF THAT HE IS
NOT (that is, BY ADORING OUR gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of
repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion...” [I still fail to understand how Christianity
was spread by the sword when they were, instead, considered as hated heretics.
It is obvious that Christianity was indeed widespread during this period and
was “incurring some suspicions” – as Emperor Trajan puts it.]

Now let’s
look at the spread of Islam:

I
really hate to do this. I hate it when I say such things about another
religion, but, this is something I think I must do to turn Mr. Ali’s point to
the very refutation that he wouldn’t want to see (see Wikipedia: Spread of Islam and count how many times it uses the words "conquest", "war" and so on).

Here's a little something by Samuel Green:

How did Islam first spread from Mecca to the whole of Arabia?
In our world today there seems to be three answers to this question.

Some say it spread through the beauty of Muhammad's teaching and example.

Others say that Muhammad spread Islam by the sword.

Finally, others will say that they don't know how Islam spread.

This article provides a brief survey of the different methods
Muhammad used to spread Islam. The survey only consults established Islamic
historical sources.1. TEACHINGTeaching Islam and Reciting the Qur'anWhen Muhammad first began to teach about Islam he did so privately and publicly in Mecca.

People began to accept Islam, both men and women, in large numbers until the fame of it
was spread throughout Mecca, and it began to be talked about. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 117)When the Apostle openly displayed Islam as God ordered him his people did not
withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly
of their gods. When he did that they took great offence and resolved
unanimously to treat him as an enemy, except those whom God had protected by Islam
from such evil, but they were a despised minority. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 118)Narrated Ibn Abbas: When the news of the advent of the Prophet reached Abu Dhar,
he said to his brother, "Ride to this valley and bring me the news of this man (i.e. the Prophet)
who claims to be a Prophet receiving information from the Heaven. Listen to him
and then come to me." His brother set out till he met the Prophet and listened to
his speech and returned to Abu Dhar and said to him, "I have seen him exhorting
people to virtues and his speech was not like poetry." Abu Dhar said, "You have
not satisfied me as to what I wanted." So, he took his journey-food and a
water-skin full of water and set out till he reached Mecca, where he went to the
Mosque looking for the Prophet, ... He then listened to the speech of the
Prophet and embraced Islam on that very spot.
(Bukhari: vol. 4, bk. 56, no. 724, Khan)

Muhammad also taught publicly at Arabian markets.

(A)t one of the fairs (markets); and while he (Muhammad) was offering himself
to the Arab tribes as was
his wont he met at al-'Aqaba a number of the Khazraj whom God intended to benefit.
... (W)hen the apostle met them he learned by inquiry
that they were of the Khazraj and allies of the Jews. He invited them to
sit with him and expounded to them Islam and recited the Quran to them.
Now God had prepared the way for Islam in that they lived side by side with
the Jews who were people of the scriptures and knowledge, while they
themselves were polytheists and idolaters. They had raided them in their
district and whenever bad feeling arose the Jews used to say to them,
"A prophet will be sent soon. His day is at hand. We shall follow him and kill
you by his aid as 'Ad and Iram perished." So when they heard the apostle's
message they said one to another: "This is the very prophet of whom the
Jews warned us. Don't let them get to him before us!" Thereupon they accepted
his teaching and became Muslims. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 197-198)

Muhammad taught at the resting places for pilgrims on their way to Mecca.

The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, remained concealed at Makkah in the
first three years of his commission to prophethood. In the fourth year he
declared it and invited the people to embrace Islam, continuing it for ten years.
In every season (of pilgrimage) he used to approach the pilgrims at their halting
places,`Ukaz, Majannah and Dhu al-Majaz, and asked them to protect him so that
he might convey to the people the message of his Lord, and in return they would
get a place in paradise. But he did not find anyone to support him or respond
to his appeal. ... None of the Arabian tribes responded to him.
(Ibn Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, vol. 1, pp. 249-251)

Through the method of private and public teaching Muhammad spread Islam. A minority of
people accepted him this way. They were not compelled but were impressed by
his teaching and accepted him freely. In Mecca, his followers were a "despised minority".
The vast majority of the Arabian tribes did not accept him.2. THE TOOLS OF EMPIREWarfare on Non-MuslimsSome of the tribes in the city of Medinah (Yathrib) did accept Muhammad and
he moved there for protection. There he began to rule and formed an
army. Muhammad began to raid those around him.

Narrated Jabir: The Prophet sent us as an army unit of three hundred warriors
under the command of Abu 'Ubaida to ambush a caravan of the Quraish. ...
(Bukhari: vol. 7, bk 67, no. 402, Khan)

Muhammad was also involved in defensive and
offensive battles. The Arabian tribes who had previously rejected Muhammad
were now asked again to submit to him. For most of the tribes this was done
by sending a military delegation. Before Muhammad's armies
would attack a tribe they would invite them to accept Islam first:

The Apostle of Allah, sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid with four hundred Muslims
to Banu al-Harith ... He ordered him to invite them to Islam three times before
fighting. ... They accepted what he had called them to. He stayed among them
to teach them Islam, its regulations, the Book of Allah and the sunnah
of His Prophet. (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, vol. 1, p. 399)... Ali and Ibn al-Musaffa said: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) sent
us on an expedition. When we reached the place of attack, I galloped my horse and
outstripped my companions, and the people of that locality received me with a great noise.
I said to them: Say "There is no god but Allah," and you will be protected.
They said this. My companions blamed me, saying: You deprived us of the booty. When we came to
the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), they told him what I had done.
So he called me, appreciating what I had done, and said: Allah has recorded
for you so and so (a reward) for every man of them. (Abu-Dawud: bk. 41, no. 5062, Hasan) Anas b. Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah
used to attack the enemy when it was dawn. He would listen to the Adhan
(Islamic call to prayer); so if he heard an Adhan, he stopped,
otherwise made an attack. (Muslim: bk. 4, no. 745, Siddiqui)

Muhammad said that he was commanded by Allah to spread Islam this way:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight
against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but
Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and
give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their
lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their
reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." (Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 2, no. 24, Khan) Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what
God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth
...
It is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth,
that He may uplift it above every religion, though the unbelievers be averse.
(Qur'an 9:29-33, Arberry)

It was easy to become Muhammad's enemy. If you did not acknowledge him as
your ruler and prophet then you were his enemy. Those who joined Muhammad
joined the fight against those who did not accept Muhammad's religion:

Surad Ibn `Abd Allah al-Azdi arrived with about thirteen to nineteen
members of his people in a deputation to the Apostle of Allah ... The
Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, appointed him (Surad) amir
of those of his people who had embraced Islam, and enjoined him to wage war
against the polytheists of the tribe of Yaman, who were living in the
adjoining territories. He set out and alighted at Jurash which
was a strongly fortified city and where the tribes of Yaman had taken shelter.
He (Surad) invited them to embrace Islam but they declined. He besieged
them for a month and used to raid their animals and seize them. Then he
retreated to a mountain, called Shakar. They thought that he had fled,
and came out to pursue him. He arrayed his forces, and attacked them.
Muslims put them to the sword as they liked. They seized twenty of their
horses and fought them all day long. The people of Jurash had sent two men
to the Apostle of Allah, who were waiting for an opportunity to meet him.
The Apostle of Allah, Allah bless him, informed them of this combat and
the victory of Surad. The two men came to their people and informed them
of the circumstances, along with other incidents. So a deputation
of them set out, and they waited on the Apostle of Allah, may Allah
bless him, and embraced Islam. (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, vol. 1, pp. 397-398)

This time of conquest was a great source of pride to Muhammad and his
Companions. Many poems were composed to celebrate their victories.
Here is a section of a poem that Ka'b b. Malik
composed before the Islamic conquest of Al-Ta'if.

If you offer peace we will accept it
And make you partners (with us) in peace and war.
If you refuse we will fight you doggedly. ...
We shall fight as long as we live
Till you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge.
We will fight not caring whom we meet
Whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. ...
And we cut off their noses and ears
With our fine polished Indian swords,
Driving them violently before us to the command of God and Islam,
Until religion is established, just and straight. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 587-588)

These battles were not self-defence, they were offensive battles whose aim
was to spread the Islamic empire and the rule of Muhammad.
This was missionary warfare and violent jihad.Throughout this period of warfare, Muhammad's teaching was still very important.
He inspired his soldiers to fight with the promise of paradise. For those
who fought there was the promise of forgiveness, status, virgins,
expensive clothes, watered gardens with abundant fruit,
rivers of wine, milk and honey, slave boys and
beautiful houses. Consider these verses from the Qur'an:

O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you
from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger
(Muhammad SAW), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of
Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know!
(If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into
Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of
'Adn Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.
(Qur'an 61:10-12, Al-Hilali & Khan)This is the similitude of Paradise which the godfearing have been promised:
therein are rivers of water unstaling, rivers of milk unchanging in flavour, and
rivers of wine -- a delight to the drinkers, rivers, too, of honey purified; and
therein for them is every fruit, and forgiveness from their Lord (Qur'an 47:15, Arberry)Lo! those who kept their duty will be in a place secure amid gardens and
water-springs, attired in silk and silk embroidery, facing one another.
Even so (it will be). And we shall wed them unto fair ones with wide,
lovely eyes. (Qur'an 44:51-54, Pickthall) Surely for the godfearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards
and maidens with swelling breasts, like of age, and a cup overflowing.
(Qur'an 78:31-33, Arberry) Perfectly We formed them, perfect, and We made them spotless virgins,
chastely amorous, like of age for the Companions of the Right. (Qur'an 56:34-35, Arberry)And there go round, waiting on them menservants of their own, as they were hidden pearls. (Qur'an 52:24, Pickthall)There wait on them immortal youths. (Qur'an 56:17, 76:19, Pickthall)

Those Muslims who did not fight for Muhammad were not equal in status to those who did:

Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home),
except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.),
and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their
wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who
strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above
those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good
(Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and
fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward; (Qur'an 4:95, Al-Hilali & Khan)

These promises of Muhammad inspired the Muslims to give their lives
towards the spread of the Islamic empire. Consider the example of `Umayr b.
al-Humam:

Then the apostle went forth to the people and incited them saying,
"By God in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no man will be slain
this day fighting against them with steadfast courage advancing not
retreating but God will cause him to enter Paradise." `Umayr b.
al-Humam brother of B. Salima was eating some dates which he had in his
hand. "Fine, Fine!" said he, "is there nothing between me and my entering
Paradise save to be killed by these men?" He flung the dates from his
hand, seized his sword, and fought against them till he was slain.
(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 300)

Thus warfare and the preaching of paradise were important
methods that Muhammad used to spread Islam. Muhammad did not send
out preachers and evangelists instead he sent out armies.Warfare on MuslimsMuhammad's use of warfare was not just aimed at non-Muslims. On
some occasions he called for war on Muslims. This was part of the
way he strengthened the hold of Islam on the early Muslims community.

O you who believe! Observe your duty to Allah, and give up what remains
(due to you) from usury (interest), if you are (in truth) believers. And if you do not,
then be warned of war (against you) from Allah and His messenger. And if you
repent, then you have your principal (without interest). Wrong not, and you
shall not be wronged. (Qur'an 2:278-279, Pickthall)

The context of the above verses is that some Muslims wanted to get the interest
that was still owed to them before they became Muslims.
They are warned that if they seek this interest then Allah and Muhammad will make war on
them. We see a similar command in 9:73.

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with
them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. (Qur'an 9:73, Pitckthall)

The context here is that Muhammad is calling the Muslims to Jihad. Some of the
Muslim tribes do not want to fight, therefore, they are called hypocrites and
Muhammad is to fight against them until they join the Jihad. Muhammad had their mosque
burnt down.

The owners of the mosque of opposition had come to the apostle as he was preparing
for (to attack) Tabuk, saying, "We have built a mosque for the sick and needy
and for nights of bad weather, and we should like you to come to us and pray for us
there." He said that he was on the point of travelling, and was preoccupied ...
and that when he came back if God willed he would come to them and pray for them
in it. When he stopped in Dhu Awan news of the mosque came to him, and he summoned
Malik b. al-Dukhshum ... and Ma'n b. `Adiy ... and told them to go to the mosque
of those evil men and destroy and burn it. ... and then the two of them ran into
the mosque where its people were and burned and destroyed it and the people ran
away from it. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 609)

In sura 33 Muslims are again called hypocrites and threatened with war if they continue to
question Muhammad's moral and military judgement.

If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the
city do not cease, We verily shall urge you on against them, then they will be your
neighbours in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found
and slain with a (fierce) slaughter. (Qur'an 33:60-61, Pitckthall)

In sura 49 Muhammad is commanded to fight Muslims
until they "return unto the ordinance of Allah".

And if two parties of believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them.
And if one party of them doeth wrong to the other, fight ye that which
doeth wrong till it return unto the ordinance of Allah; then, if it return,
make peace between them justly, and act equitably. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable.
(Qur'an 49:9, Pickthall)

In sura 66 those Muslims who questioned what Muhammad was doing
are called hypocrites and were to be treated harshly.

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be
stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end.
(Qur'an 66:9, Pickthall)

Muhammad commanded the true Muslims to make war on those Muslims who
did not stop using alcohol.

Narrated Daylam al-Himyari: I asked the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and
said: Apostle of Allah! we live in a cold land in which we do heavy work and
we make a liquor from wheat to get strength from it for our work and to
stand the cold of our country. He asked: Is it intoxicating? I replied: Yes.
He said: You must avoid it. I said: The people will not abandon it. He said:
If they do not abandon it, fight with them. (Abu Dawood: bk 26, no. 3675, Hasan)

To conclude, Muhammad used warfare on Muslims who questioned him or
did not follow the laws he gave. They were called hypocrites. In this
way Muhammad strengthened and spread the influence on Islam on the newly
converted tribes.Money and GiftsWarfare was not always the best option for Muhammad. As he gained
wealth he also used money and gifts to spread Islam.

Narrated Anas: The Prophet gathered some people of Ansar and said,
"The People of Quraish are still close to their Pre-lslamic
period of ignorance and have suffered a lot, and I want
to help them and attract their hearts (by giving them
the war booty). ... (Bukhari: vol. 5, bk. 59, no. 623, Khan)Narrated Abu Said: Ali sent a piece of gold to the Prophet who distributed
it among four persons: Al-Aqra' bin Habis Al-Hanzali from the tribe of Mujashi,
'Uyaina bin Badr Al-Fazari, Zaid At-Ta'i who belonged to (the tribe of) Bani
Nahban, and 'Alqama bin Ulatha Al-'Amir who belonged to (the tribe of) Bani Kilab.
So the Quraish and the Ansar became angry and said, "He (i.e. the Prophet)
gives the chief of Najd and does not give us." The Prophet said, "I give them
so as to attract their hearts (to Islam)."
(Bukhari: vol. 4, bk. 55, no. 558, Khan)The apostle told them to tell Malik that if he came to him
as a Muslim he would return his family and property to him and give him
a hundred camels. On hearing this Malik came out ... and rode off to join
the apostle ... He (Muhammad) gave him back his family and property and gave him
a hundred camels. He became an excellent Muslim. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 593)

After Muhammad had conquered Mecca he ordered the alms money (zakat)
be used for certain purposes. One of these purposes was to encourage
people to embrace Islam:

The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect
them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled (to Islam). (Qur'an 9:60, Pickthall)

Commenting on "those whose hearts are to be reconciled",
Ibn Kathir writes:

There are those who are given alms to embrace Islam. For instance,
the Prophet of Allah gave something to Safwan bin Umayyah ...
(Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, p. 455)... Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave one hundred camels to
Safwan b. Umayya. He again gave him one hundred camels, and then
again gave him one hundred camels. Sa'id b. Musayyib said that
Safwan told him: (By Allah) Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)
gave me what he gave me (and my state of mind at that time was) that
he was the most detested person amongst people in my eyes. But he
continued giving to me until now he is the dearest of people to me.
(Muslim: bk. 30, no. 5730, Siddiqui)

Thus sometimes Muhammad used money and gifts to spread Islam.AssassinsSome tribes did not respond to warfare or money. Ibn Ishaq records how Muhammad
used the fear and intimidation generated from assassinations to convert a tribe:

Abu `Afak ... showed his disaffection when the apostle (Muhammad)
killed al-Harith b. Samit ... The apostle said, "Who will deal
with this rascal for me?" Whereupon Salim b. `Umayr, ... went
forth and killed him. ... (`Asma d. Marwan) was of B. Umayya b. Zayd.
When Abu `Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. ... When
the apostle heard what she had said, he said,
"Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi
who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her
house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle
and told him what he had done and he (Muhammad) said, "You have
helped God and His apostle, O `Umayr!" When he asked if he would have
to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt
their heads about her," ... The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men
of (tribe of) Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of
Islam. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 675-676)

Thus, sometimes Muhammad used the method of assassination to convert a
tribe to Islam.CompulsionSometimes Muhammad did not use compulsion to spread Islam.

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear
from Error. (Qur'an 2:256, Yusuf Ali)The apostle sent out troops in the district around Mecca
inviting men to God: he did not order them to fight. (Ibn Ishaq,
Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 561)

But on other occasions he did use and approve of compulsion.

He (Muhammad) said: "Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn't it time that you recognize
that I am God's apostle?" He answered, "As to that I still have some doubt."
I (Abbas) said to him, "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah
and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head," so
he did so. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 547)
Abu Bakr said: "You asked me for the best advice that I could give you,
and I will tell you. God sent Muhammad with this religion and he strove
for it until men accepted it voluntary or by force." (Ibn Ishaq,
Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 668-669)... When Jarir reached Yemen, there was a man who used to foretell and
give good omens by casting arrows of divination.
Someone said to him. "The messenger of Allah's Apostle is present here
and if he should get hold of you, he would chop off your neck." One day
while he was using them (i.e. arrows of divination), Jarir stopped
there and said to him, "Break them (i.e. the arrows) and testify that
none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will
chop off your neck." So the man broke those arrows and testified
that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah.
(Bukhari: vol. 5, bk. 59, no. 643, Khan) Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has
the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three
cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and
the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
(Bukhari: vol. 9, bk. 83, no. 17, Khan)

Thus on some occasions Muhammad used and approved of compulsion to spread and keep people
in Islam.TortureMuhammad needed a lot of money to finance the expansion of his
religion and empire. One of the richest cities in the region was the Jewish city of
Khaybar. The Jews there did not accept Muhammad as a prophet or his claim
to rule over them. After Muhammad had conquered Khaybar we read what he
did to get their riches to finance his jihad.

Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure (of Kaybar), ... was brought
to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew
came ... to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin
every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we
find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that
the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked
him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr
b. al-`Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has," so he kindled a fire with
flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 515)

Thus Muhammad sometimes used torture to finance the spread
of his religion and empire.3. REMOVING OPTIONSDestroying the Ka'bas and ShrinesThe Ka'ba in Mecca was not the only ka'ba in Arabia. There were other ka'bas and
shrines that the Arabs would make pilgrimage to during the year. Muhammad spread
Islam by destroying these other ka'bas and making the Islamic worship at Mecca the only
option for the Arabs.

Jarir bin 'Abdullah narrated: There was a house called Dhul-Khalasa in the Pre-lslamic
Period and it was also called Al-Ka'ba Al-Yamaniya or Al-Ka'ba Ash-Shamiya.
Allah's Apostle said to me, "Will you relieve me from Dhul-Khalasa?" So I
left for it with 150 cavalrymen from the tribe of Ahmas and then we destroyed
it and killed whoever we found there. Then we came to the Prophet and
informed him about it. He invoked good upon us and upon the tribe of Ahmas.
(Bukhari: vol. 5, bk. 58, no. 160, Khan)Then the apostle sent Khalid to al-`Uzza which was in Nakhla. It was a
temple which this tribe of Quraysh and Kinana and all Mudar used to
venerate. ... When Khalid arrived he destroyed her and returned to the
apostle. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 565)

Destroying Independent MosquesMuhammad commissioned the construction of many mosques. However, on one
occasion an independent group built a mosque and invited Muhammad to it.
These Muslims did not want to fight in Muhammad's Jihad. Muhammad had their
mosque destroyed.

The owners of the mosque of opposition had come to the apostle as he was preparing
for (to attack) Tabuk, saying, "We have built a mosque for the sick and needy
and for nights of bad weather, and we should like you to come to us and pray for us
there." He said that he was on the point of travelling, and was preoccupied ...
and that when he came back if God willed he would come to them and pray for them
in it. When he stopped in Dhu Awan news of the mosque came to him, and he summoned
Malik b. al-Dukhshum ... and Ma'n b. `Adiy ... and told them to go to the mosque
of those evil men and destroy and burn it. ... and then the two of them ran into
the mosque where its people were and burned and destroyed it and the people ran
away from it. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 609)

Thus Muhammad spread his Islam by making his mosques the only option.Rejecting Other ProphetsAt the same time that Muhammad was claiming to be a prophet
there were men from other tribes who claimed to be prophets too.
These men and their tribes accepted Muhammad as
a prophet but Muhammad did not accept these men as prophets. During this
time these tribes had two prophets: Muhammad plus their own.During his life Muhammad as not able to kill these other
prophets but when he died his followers killed them. This will be shown in section 5.
Thus Islam spread by making Muhammad the only option for a prophet.4. INCORPORATING THE PRE-ISLAMIC RELIGIONMuhammad spread Islam by making the transition from the pre-Islamic
religion to Islam easy. He did this by making very few changes to it.
The idols were removed and people now had to submit to him,
but nearly all of the other practices remained the same.
In practice Islam is very similar to the pre-Islamic religion.
Here are a few examples.FastingMuhammad initially continued the pre-Islamic time for fasting:

Narrated 'Aisha:
'Ashura' (i.e. the tenth of Muharram) was a day on which the tribe of
Quraish used to fast in the pre-Islamic period of ignorance. The Prophet
also used to fast on this day. So when he migrated to Medina, he fasted on
it and ordered (the Muslims) to fast on it. When the fasting of Ramadan
was enjoined, it became optional for the people to fast or not
to fast on the day of Ashura. (Bukhari: vol. 5, bk. 58, no. 172, Khan)

As-Safa and Al-MarwaThe pre-Islamic religion also had a special walk that was done between
the mountains of Safa and Marwa in Mecca. Muhammad continued this practice too.
Again, some of the early Muslims were uncomfortable with this and thought that this
pagan practice should be stopped. Later Muhammad transformed the meaning of
these mountains to be "symbols of Allah":

Narrated 'Asim: I asked Anas bin Malik: "Did you use to dislike to perform Tawaf
between Safa and Marwa?" He said, "Yes, as it was of the ceremonies of the days
of the Pre-Islamic period of ignorance, till Allah revealed: 'Verily! (The two mountains)
As-Safa and Al-Marwa are among the symbols of Allah. It is therefore no sin
for him who performs the pilgrimage to the Ka'ba, or performs 'Umra, to
perform Tawaf between them.'" (2.158) (Bukhari: vol. 2, bk. 26, no. 710, Khan)

The Black StoneThe pre-Islamic religion was animistic with special attention to
sacred stones.

Narrated Abu Raja Al-Utaridi: We used to worship stones, and when we
found a better stone than the first one, we would throw the first one
and take the latter, but if we could not get a stone then we would
collect some earth (i.e. soil) and then bring a sheep and milk
that sheep over it, and perform the Tawaf around it. ...
(Bukhari: vol. 5, bk. 59, no. 661, Khan)

The most sacred stone in the pre-Islamic religion was the
Black Stone.
It was part of the Ka'ba in Mecca. Even though the worship of stones is
animistic Muhammad continued this practice. Some of the early reformer Muslims
found this very uncomfortable.

Narrated Zaid bin Aslam from his father who said:
"Umar bin Al-Khattab addressed the Corner (Black Stone) saying,
'By Allah! I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit
nor harm. Had I not seen the Prophet touching (and kissing) you,
I would never have touched (and kissed) you.' Then he kissed it
and said, 'There is no reason for us to do Ramal
(a special style of walking) (in Tawaf)
except that we wanted to show off before the pagans, and now Allah
has destroyed them.' 'Umar added, '(Nevertheless), the Prophet
did that and we do not want to leave it (i.e. Ramal).'"
(Bukhar: vol. 2, bk. 26, no. 675, Khan)

But for the majority of the early Muslims being able to continue their previous practice
of venerating the Black Stone made it easy for them to accept Islam and so Islam spread.IncantationsIncantations were part of the animistic pre-Islamic religion. Muhammad
allowed this practice to continue as long as the incantations were
transformed to be Islamic:

'Auf b. Malik Ashja'i reported We practised incantation in the pre-Islamic
days and we said: Allah's Messenger, what is your opinion about it?
He said: Let me know your incantation and said: There is no harm
in the incantation which does not smack of polytheism.
(Muslim: bk. 26, no. 5457, Siddiqui)

Thus Muhammad spread Islam by making an easy transition from the pre-Islamic
religion to Islam. He did this by retaining most of the animistic pre-Islamic
practices.

Narrated 'Aisha: Whenever Allah's Apostle ordered the Muslims to do
something, he used to order them deeds which were easy for them to do ...
(Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 2, no. 19, Khan)

Animistic BlessingsMany hadiths record that Muhammad and his
followers believed that substances from his body had special powers to
bless people. This is a pre-Islamic animistic belief. The early Muslims venerated
Muhammad's saliva, ablution water, sweat, hair and possibly even his urine
(1,
2).

... (I)f he (Muhammad) spat, the spittle would fall in the hand
of one of them (i.e. the Prophet's companions) who would rub it on
his face and skin ... (Bukhari: vol. 3, bk. 50, no. 891, Khan)Narrated Mahmud bin Ar-Rabi': I remember Allah's Apostle and also the mouthful of water
which he took from a bucket in our house and ejected (spat on me). ...
(Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 12, no. 801, Khan)Narrated Abu Juhaifa: I saw Allah's Apostle in a red leather
tent and I saw Bilal taking the remaining water with which the
Prophet had performed ablution. I saw the people taking the
utilized water impatiently and whoever got some of it rubbed
it on his body and those who could not get any took the moisture
from the others' hands. ... (Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 8, no. 373, Khan)Narrated Abu Hazim: ... A man among his companions, seeing him (Muhammad)
wearing it (a sheet), said, "O Allah's Apostle! Please give it to me to wear."
The Prophet said, "Yes." (and gave him that sheet). ... That man said, "I just
wanted to have its blessings as the Prophet had put it on, so I hoped
that I might be shrouded in it." (Bukhari: vol. 8, bk. 73, no. 62, Khan)Anas b. Malik reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him)
came to the house of Umm Sulaim and slept in her bed while she was
away from her house. ...
She came and found him sweating and his sweat falling on the leather
cloth spread on her bed. She opened her scent-bag and began to fill
the bottles with it. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him)
was startled and woke up and said: Umm Sulaim, what are you doing?
She said: Allah's Messenger, we seek blessings for our children
through it. Thereupon he said: You have done something right.
(Muslim: bk. 30, no. 5762, Siddique)Abu Bakr reported: (Muhammad called for) the barber and, pointing
towards the right side of his head, said: (Start from) here, and
then distributed his hair among those who were near him. (Muslims: bk. 7,
no. 2992, Siddique)

Muhammad continued the practice of venerating the marabout (holy man) with
himself being the object of veneration.
This practice is often mistakenly said to be "folk Islam" and not genuine Islam, however,
Muhammad clearly accepted his veneration. This was part of the way
Muhammad spread Islam.Venerated in PrayerThough Muhammad is dead he is venerated and addressed in the Islamic prayer (salaat).

Venerating saints/marabouts was a pre-Islamic practice that Muhammad continued
with himself. This made Islam easy for his followers and helped to spread it.5. AFTER MUHAMMAD'S DEATH

(Immediately after the death of Muhammad) The situation that Abu Bakr
faced on assuming the caliphate was very grim. Many tribes apostatised from
Islam and refused to pay Zakat. Many false prophets rose throughout the
length and breadth of Arabia, and many people offered allegiance to them.
The argument that weighed with them was that a living prophet was to be
preferred to one who was dead. (Prof. Masud ul-Hasan, The History of
Islam, vol. 1, p. 97)

The following is a summary of Prof. Hasan's account of the wars against
these apostate Arab tribes.The Arab tribes around Medina were prepared to stay Muslim but they did
not want to pay the Zakat (tax) to the Islamic authorities. These tribes tried
to attack Medina but were repelled. Abu Bakr chased and conquered them
and took their land.Abu Bakr then turned his attention to the rest of the Arabian
Peninsula, much of which had now chosen to leave Islam.To the north of Medina was the tribe of Asad. They followed their
prophet Taleaha. The Muslim forces marched against them and
defeated them at Buzakha. They then returned to Islam.Next the Muslim forces marched to the tribe of Fazara and
fought at Zafar. The Muslims won and the defeated tribe offered
submission and was readmitted to Islam.The tribe of Sulaim were attacked by the Muslim forces and
defeated. Their leader Abu Shajra was captured and taken to Medina
were he accepted Islam.The Muslims force marched against the tribe of Tamim. This tribe
offered no resistance nor did they offer submission. Their leader was
killed and his wife married by the Islamic general, Khalid. The
tribe then accepted Islam.The tribe of Hanifa was led by the prophet Musaylima. The Muslims
fought hard against this tribe and finally won though they suffered a
great number of casualties. Once Musaylima was killed and
the tribe subdued they accepted Islam.After this battle Abu Bakr sent an army to Bahrain. In Bahrain a
new king had come to power and he rejected Islam. There was much
internal fighting. The Muslims tried to conquer them but were not
successful until reinforcements arrived. Having been defeated, the
people of Bahrain repented and were admitted to the fold of Islam.In Oman, Laquit ibn Malik was the prophet. A Muslim force was sent
against him. Laquit and ten thousand of his followers were killed.
Then the people of Oman reconverted to Islam.In Mahrah there was civil war with the death of Muhammad.
The Muslims sided with the weaker party and fought with them.
When this region was conquered the people of Mahrah
repented, and were reconverted to Islam.In Yemen there was a prophet called Aswad Ansi. He had a large
following. The Muslim forces marched against them, defeated them and
killed Aswad. Once defeated, this region returned to Islam.At Hadramaut the people resisted Islamic rule. The Muslim forces
conquered them and they were readmitted to the fold of Islam.

The apostasy campaigns began in August 632 C.E. and these operations
were over by February 633 C.E. Within the short space of six months,
Abu Bakr succeeded in exterminating apostasy and winning back all
the tribes in Arabia to the fold of Islam. (Prof. Masud ul-Hasan,
The History of Islam, vol. 1, p. 102)

Thus when Muhammad died the Islamic empire fragmented and many of
the Arab tribes left Islam. They did this for various
reasons. Some didn't want to pay tax to Mecca/Medinah, others wanted
to follow their own prophet for they did not see Muhammad as the final
prophet. Muhammad's companions compelled these
tribes to return to Islam. This is how Islam spread and established itself
in Arabia.CONCLUSIONHow did Muhammad spread Islam? As this survey demonstrates he
used many methods. These included teaching Islam, reciting the Qur'an,
warfare, money and gifts, assassinations, compulsion, torture, removing
other religious options and incorporating much of the pre-Islamic religion
into Islam. After Muhammad's death his companions continued some of these methods.
It is wrong to exaggerate any one of these methods; Muhammad used all of them
to spread Islam.REFERENCESSulaiman Abu Dawud,
Sunan Abu-Dawud (translator: Prof. Ahmad Hasan).Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali & Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Translation of the meanings
of the Noble Qur'an in the English Language Madinah: King Fahd Complex. 1419 A.H.Arthur J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955.Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari,
Sahih al-Bukhari (translator: Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan).Prof. Masud-ul-Hasan, The History of Islam,
Delhi: Adam Publishers and Distributors, 2002, 2 volumes.Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated as,
The Life of Muhammad, (translator: A. Guillaume), Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998.Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir (abridged), Riyadh: Darussalam, 2000, 10 volumes.Ibn Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, (translator: S. Moinul Haq) New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2 volumes, no date.Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj,
Sahih Muslim (translator: Abdul Hamid Siddique).Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an, Delhi: Crescent Publishing House, 1985.Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning Of The Holy Quran, Maryland, U.S: Amana Publications, 2004.

Ali makes it sound like Christianity was spread around the fourth century by Constantine which is another utter error he made. He is perhaps, unaware of the spread of Christianity or is just trying to be deceitful to his readers...

Here's what the Wikipedia says:The history of Christianity concerns the Christian religion, its followers and the Church with its various denominations, from the first century to the present.

Christianity emerged in the Levant (now Palestine and Israel) in the mid-1st century AD. Christianity spread initially from Jerusalem throughout the Near East, into places such as Syria, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Asia Minor, Jordan and Egypt. In the 4th century it was successively adopted as the state religion by Armenia in 301, Georgia in 319,[1][2] the Aksumite Empire in 325,[3][4] and the Roman Empire in 380. It became common to all of Europe in the Middle Ages and expanded throughout the world during Europe's Age of Exploration from the Renaissance onwards to become the world's largest religion.[5] Today there are 2 billion Christians, one third of humanity.[6] Christianity divided into the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church in the Great Schism of 1054. The Protestant Reformation split the Catholic Church into many different denominations. (Emphasis mine) It goes on to say:During its early history, Christianity grew from a 1st-century Jewish following to a religion that existed across the entire Greco-Roman world and beyond.

Early Christianity may be divided into 2 distinct phases: the apostolic period, when the first apostles were alive and led the Church, and the post-apostolic period, when an early episcopal structure developed, and persecution was periodically intense. The Roman persecution of Christians ended in AD 313 under the reign of Constantine the Great, who in 325 prompted the First Council of Nicaea, the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils.

From
the above, we see that Mr. Ali was utterly wrong in that silly claim and if he
was actually thinking that Christianity was indeed spread around 325 A.D by
Constantine the Great, then he surely has mistaken Roman Catholicism for true
Christianity and I think he really needs to do more, independent research.

As a young boy of 17- still very
much a learner- I do not believe in biased learning. A person learning in a
biased way is no more different from a person who is still an illiterate [Fact not insult]. Therefore, I urge Mr.
Ali to make a better research next time because these claims are ridiculous!

There is a popular saying amongst
Muslims and Mormons- “Jesus was never a Christian, Therefore, Christianity is
false”... This statement is made by people who do not even know the meaning of
the word “Christian”. What does the word “Christian” stand for? It stands for
“being Christ-like”, “following Christ”, “Representing Christ”, e.t.c. It is
foolish to ask “was Jesus a Christian?” when you know fully well that Jesus
could not have been a follower of Jesus could he? No of course! Therefore, that
is not a proof but ignorance... Christianity coined from what the disciples
were called during the times they preached the message that was given to them
by Jesus Christ himself. Acts 11:26 says “...The disciples were called
Christians in Antioch” because they were the followers of Christ, his teaching
and his example. Christianity [the followership not the name] started when
Jesus said to two fishermen “Come with me and I will teach you how to catch
people”- and they followed him at once [Matthew 4:19]... They “followed him”-
Followed who? Christ! Therefore, they were followers of Christ, in other words,
Christians!. Christianity is all about “Catching people”- bringing them out of
the fire into salvation it is not a religion where you MUST pay homage or do
pilgrimage to a certain place, grow goatees, e.t.c. It teaches that the REAL
homage, pilgrimage, worship and friendship you can have with God is in your
heart that is why Apostle Paul regarded true circumcision as “circumcision of
the heart” i.e. repentance, new life, being dead to sin and alive to new
righteousness. He never discredited the normal circumcision rite as many
misunderstand him to have done.

Mr. Ali went further to attack the
Christmas as “birth day of the Eastern
son-god Mithra, who was Persian-born and said to be of virgin birth”. Who
told you [Ali] that Christmas was a Christian doctrine? Have you ever heard a
Pastor say “If you don’t celebrate Christmas, you will go to hell”? Of course,
we openly admit that Christmas had a pagan origin but it was/is never a
necessity in Christianity. In fact, this same Ali who made it clear that the
“Mithra” was said to be of virgin birth believes [as the Muslim Qur’an says]
that Jesus was actually of virgin birth- Q.3:45- and as a Muslim, he would not
say that the virgin birth aspect of the story applies to Jesus and in other
words, saying that it was of pagan origin would he? He surely wouldn’t! So why
the pagan-Christian talk? You said in Page 132 “If Christian dignitaries are questioned concerning the similarities
between Christianity and the above-mentioned son-gods and the Hindu Trinity,
their answer will be the same as always, that Satan introduced the religion of
Jesus Christ to the ancient pagan idolaters before the advent of Jesus on this
earth to confuse the whole truth...” Oh! If that answer is not convincing,
then what would be your answer if you are questioned about the virgin birth of
Jesus being similar that of the Persian-born Mithra since your own hand writes “birth day of the Eastern son-god Mithra,
who was Persian-born and said to be of
virgin birth”? I would like to know how you would defend it if it is
raised against your own Qur’an that agrees with the fact that Jesus was of
virgin birth [Q.3:45]. You hold on to the “son-god” and “Christmas” aspect
of the story as pagan but ignore the ‘virgin birth’ aspect of it because
calling it pagan would be same as calling your beloved prophet a liar and not
from God. Therefore it is left for you to either choose all or leave all AND
DON’T BE BIASED!

Mr. Ali said again “the prophet Jesus, who was a Jew, held
Saturday as the Sabbath Day, but present-day Christians hold it on Sunday, as
do the followers of pagan religions” Oh Ali! Why contradict your Qur’an
this way? I’ll answer your claim word-by-word. [1] “Prophet Jesus was a Jew” how do you explain the verse in you
Qur’an that says that he was a Muslim? Your own hadith says “They [Isa and the Mahdi] will break the
Cross [Christians] and kill the swine [Jews]”(Sahih Muslim, Hadith 7039) would he kill the “swine”
that followed the religion he followed? You accept the part of the Bible that
says that he was a born Jew but EVEN YOU and your religion rejects that he
practised Judaism but says that he practised Islam? What’s the reason for this
blatant contradiction? You Muslims do not take Saturday [Sabbath] as your holy
day do you? But you just said that he held Saturday as the Sabbath Day and in
Islam, there is in fact NO SABBATH since Allah did not rest after the creation
[on the seventh day]. How do you explain how Jesus was both a Jew and a Muslim
at the same time? Was he a fake Jew and true Muslim OR true Jew and fake
Muslim??? These are the things people do to their beliefs- they debunk it in
attempt to debunk another.

Sabbath is still on Saturday; never changed,
never will change. Sunday is the continuous celebration or service of the
resurrection NOT A NEW SABBATH! [2] “But present-day Christians hold it
on Sunday, as do the followers of pagan religions” What pagan religions?
Does it make Islam pagan if I start up a pagan religion today and take its holy
day to be Friday? Having resemblance in practise does not mean anything at all.
Are you aware that every day [Sunday to Saturday- Roman dates] had/has a god
behind its naming which means this gods were worshipped on these days since it
was dedicated to them?- Is Friday not among them? If we hold the same logic Mr.
Ali holds [that resemblance with a pagan religion makes it pagan], then EVERY
religion on earth today will be pagan. And since, I’m pretty sure that Mr. Ali
disagrees to this silly logic, then why stick to the ‘pagan talk”? – You to
your religion, me to mine [that’s what the Qur’an says- Q.109:6]

In the same page, Mr. Ali said “Mary is worshipped and called Mother of
God” then he made reference to the Buddhist temple having idols and
compared them to the Roman Catholic Church generalizing it as Christianity. He
also said “Hindus look upon the water of
Jumna as holy water... Christians look upon the water of river Jordan as holy
water...”

My simple response is: Ali made a
blatant error [I would not say he lied] in saying that Catholics worship Mary
and those “images” or “idol” [as he prefers to call them] are not being
worshipped but being revered just as Muslims revere Al hajar Al aswad [the black stone attached to ka’aba] and both the
Catholics and the Muslims kiss their stuffs. Any difference? No of course! It’s
still reverence-reverence and since he calls the images “idols”, then I will
call it idolatry-idolatry! Can you [Ali] see how much hurt you are causing to
you beloved religion? Just as you give reverence to Al hajar Al aswad,
Catholics give reverence [not worship] to the images in their churches...
Should we call one, idolatry and ignore the other? No! Leave theirs alone and
yours will be free [NOTE: catholics worship only
God].

Concerning the Hindu holy water,
Jumna and River Jordan, My answer to you is. [1] To this very day, a large
number of pagans who grow goatees to at least, a fist length as a custom in
their religion existed/exist on earth and Mullahs do the same in Islam. Are you
pagans as they were/are? [Answer that]. [2] You know fully well that before the
advent of Muhammad, the Ka’aba in Mecca was filled with about 360 idols
[worshipped as gods] and hajj was well practised among these pagans to please
their deities i.e. the circumambulation of the ka’aba and al hajar al aswad was
one of the idols that in habited the ka’aba [in other words, worshipped]. Does
this mean that your religion is a continuation of these pagan practices and
since Al hajj is one of the main pillars of Islam, does this make Islam more
pagan than those that take Jordan as holy water- which is not even a necessity?

He said “a large number of deaths and resurrections coincided with the
Christian Easter day” could you please give us an example? Oh! I can see
you going to that Atheist that said “Jesus
did not exist”, “His virgin birth is
pagan”, “His record has no place in
history”, e.t.c. I’m I right? Since he, in the same utterance, said all
these words, should we believe what he believed? OK! Let’s go on and believe
what he believed and tell me if you own Islamic doctrine will not be affected.
Are you also aware that history holds that some of the Indians fasted when the
moon was out and ended the fasting with a feast on sighting the moon before the
advent of Muhammad- which coincides with the Ramadan so much that the months
are even around the same time (see post: Ramadan pagan origin and it's roots)? Does this mean that Ramadan is also pagan?Easter (the date) is pagan! Christmas (the date) is pagan! Is that
what you want to hear? Oh yes! They are pagan because they are not Christian
doctrines! Is Ramadan pagan also? I’m sure you do not reject the fact that even
though you don’t accept the death and resurrection, you do not reject the
virgin birth, do you?

I laughed really hard when I read
the Hindu-Christian comparison he made in his page 131-132 and of course, it is
about the “Trinity issue”. It has been made clear that the two are in no way the same NOT EVEN THE NUMBER THREE that
these critics hold on to... Hindus worship Brahman in infini-unity NOT Trinity
and in fact, there is no religion in the world that does not have a counterfeit
[even the Unitarians have loads of them – before and after existence]. So as we
all have noticed, Mr. Ali did his research with an “Islamic mind” and not with
an unbiased mind so “Mr. Ali, if you are
reading this book, I really urge you to do more research. And this time, not
with an “Islamic mind” but with a mind that is not sentimental and I promise
that you will find out the truth for yourself and not these absurdities I’m
seeing in your book”...h

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TRINITY OF YHWH [God Almighty] AND
THE SO CALLED TRINITY OF BRAHMAN [The god of the Hindus]

A sudden hoax came up from amongst the Anti Trinitarians and
even some Trinitarians [followers of YHWH] concerning the Hindu deity and the
supposed similarity to YHWH. Most Anti Trinitarians especially Mr Abdallah
Osama [the gentleman who runs Answering-christianity.org] made real fun of
YHWH’s Trinity in one of his posts calling it in short words, pagan-inherited
and even went so far to call Trinitarian Christians “pagan Trinitarian
Christians [attacking the believers not the doctrine]” in one of his posts and
there are many other Anti Trinitarians who do the same to the Trinitarian
doctrine. This hoax has led many weak believers in the Holy Trinity into
apostasy and has made the Anti Trinitarians more mischievous in their evil act.

The
idea that the Hindu “trinity” was being inserted into Christianity and in other
words, calling Christianity pagan displays nothing but stark ignorance of what
the true Trinitarian doctrine teaches. These Anti Trinitarians fail to note
that before Christianity, Islam, Arianism, and so on, there were pagans who
believed in strict Unitarian monotheism and did not believe in Trinity. What
would you call me if I point to Islam, Judaism and other Unitarian beliefs as
pagan just because of the resemblance in belief? A fool right? Well, that is
what you are for calling Trinitarian Christians pagan because of the doctrine
of the Holy Trinity [Regardless of the Twinities {Two in one}, Quadrinities
{Four in one} and so on but looking for the pagan “trinities”].

A
question one really needs to ask these Anti Trinitarians is “What does the doctrine of Trinity teach?”...
The Hindus themselves know and say that Brahman’s “trinity” is far different
from YHWH Trinity. The Table below lists the differences between YHWH’s Trinity
and Brahman’s so called Trinity:

FEATURES

YHWH

Brahman

Name,
Meaning and substance

YHWH
Elohim [The LORD God] is ONE [Echad, unified] {Deuteronomy 6:4}. The oneness
is seen in three divine persons {personas}. Therefore, YHWH’s Trinity can be defined as ONE God
[oneness in substance] that exists in three different forms or persons [The
Father, Son and Holy Ghost] without difference in plan or agreement. And
note: there is no other god with/beside him [Deuteronomy 32:39] e.g. they, as
ONE [Isaiah 44:24] are the creator - Revelations 10:6, John 1:3 and Job 33:4.
And in unity, these THREE Personas
of YHWH make up one God.

Brahman’s
expression is shown in three main and distinct gods alongside all
other numerous subordinate gods [difference in substance] –tritheism and rank
polytheism in the guise of monotheism- these three main gods are: Brahma,
Vishnu and Shiva [different names from YHWH’s]. Brahma is creator, Vishnu is
preserver while Shiva is destroyer – neither Vishnu nor Shiva was involved in
the ‘creation’. And even if they- Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva- come together in
unity, they still do not from the complete Brahman because Brahman is also
seen in other smaller deities than they.

Theism

YHWH
is one- no other god is true [Isaiah 45:18] - This is strict monotheism. 1
John 5:7 [KJV] says the three [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] are one – this is
Trinity. Therefore, Monotheism in unity – Trinity in unity

Brahman
can be said to be one – revealed in three main gods alongside several others
– i.e. the Hindus worship more gods apart from the three main gods and even
say that their numerous gods are all expressions of one Brahman. IS THIS
TRINITY? This has graduated from unified tritheism [three gods] into
infini-unity [many gods in one] NOT trinity and is in other words, Rank
polytheism in unity.

Forms

YHWH
the Father has the same form with YHWH the Son and the YHWH the Holy Spirit
in entity and image just as they [as ONE] made man to be like them- Gen
1:26-27 - [in unity] – Soul, body and spirit [1 Thessalonians 5:23]

Brahman
is impersonal. Brahma, the ‘creator’ has FIVE heads, four arms and perhaps
two legs, Vishnu; the ‘preserver’ has four arms likewise Shiva, the
‘destroyer’. It is crystal clear that Brahman did not ‘make’ the Hindus to be
like him [Brahma, the ‘creator’] or else, the Hindus would be nothing but
Monsters [having Five heads and four arms]

Carved/not
carved

YHWH
Elohim gave an explicit order “do not
make for yourselves images of anything
in heaven or on earth or in the water above the earth. Do not bow down to
worship them...” [Exodus 20:4-5] therefore, trying to get him carved will
result to disobedience since carving him is a sin. Therefore Christians
worship YHWH Elohim in faith.

Brahman
of course cannot even speak, hear or give orders [because he is impersonal]
so the Hindus carved his expressions in extreme monstrosity in order to be
close to him and see him [seeing is believing –the heathens say]. Therefore,
the Hindus worship Brahman at sight and not in faith

He said again “The drinking and eating of bread and Holy Communion is another
practice of the Christians, and the wine and the bread symbolizes the blood and
flesh of Jesus (Allah forbid.)” Does this man even know the meaning of that
event? He takes every word in the Bible word-for-word as if he were reading a
story book. Jesus is described as the “word
of God” in John 1:1-14 and when Jesus said “my Flesh and my Blood”, he did not literally mean his physical
body even though he used the word “is” [“esti”
in Greek]. It, of course symbolizes the “sharing of the word”, “eating of the
word”- Just as Ezekiel ate the scroll God gave him in Ezekiel 3:1-2, he [Jesus]
gave Himself- the word of God- to the disciples to “eat and drink” as Ezekiel
did and when he said “DO THIS IN THE MEMORY OF ME”, He meant “share the word to
others to “eat” after he had left the Earth” [Matthew 28:19] all this events
are very symbolic. So when he said “Allah forbid”, he was least aware that he
was saying “Allah forbid that the word of God be shared” in other words,
calling Allah the Anti Christ! So he has once again, out of misunderstanding,
uttered a foolish statement.

He said “There is nothing in this verse [Matthew 28:19-20] which confirms the
Doctrine of Trinity, i.e. the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co equal
and co-eternal...”Go to the chapter of Trinity and get the instant
refutation to this claim. He said again “...Another
verse, “These three are one” (1 John 5:7) is recognized as spurious and is the
addition of a copyist inserted long after John’s time...”Mr. Ali, do I
need to quote Q.2:111 for you to know that you have to provide proof (see post: Johannes Comma and here)? Go to the
Trinity chapter and see the refutation to the claim. He continues “Another text in support of this theory may
be noted briefly here. This is:

“‘When all
things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was,
the word was. The word, then, was with God at the beginning’ (John 1:1-2). This
verse is translated differently. According to the translators of the centenary
Bible it should read:

“In the
beginning was the Word. The word was near God, and the Word was a divine being.
He was in the beginning near God”. This translation is substantially different,
and does not give the least support to the Doctrine of Trinity...” Now we see how Mr. Ali poses as both a Qur’an and a Bible
expert here. He quotes a Centenary Bible translation and fails to tell us the
true source of this quotation. Take a look at the refutation to this silly,
unscholarly argument:

Firstly, I know Mr. Ali probably
only knows English, Arabic and his local dialect so I’ll write out the Greek
word used in this verse which is more than just a century old: “...Theos
en ho Logos”which translates
as “the Word was God” not “God was the word” [the verb “en” shows that ho Logos is the subject] and in fact,
Mr. Ali showed dishonesty in writing “...it should read” when he knew fully
well that among the centenary translations, this one he quoted was one among
the few that had it this way. Why did he choose to quote this particular one
that no single reputable scholar seems to agree with? Of course! It was to suit
his purpose. If Mr. Ali were an unbiased thinking person, he would see that in
that translation, the words “the word was near God” was repeated twice in the
same quotation and makes the whole thing sound like a tautology... Let’s take a
look at what the Early Church Fathers believed:

Ignatius:
Bishop of Antioch [c. 105 A.D.]:

God was manifested in
human form for the renewal of eternal life [1:58] continue in initiate union with JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD [1:68] I pray for you happiness forever in OUR GOD,
JESUS CHRIST [1:96]

Justin
Martyr [150 A.D.]:

He deserves to be WORSHIPPED AS GOD
AND AS CHRIST
[1:229] For Christ is King, Priest, GOD,
LORD, Angel [Meaning – Messenger in Hebrew] and Man [1:221] The Father of the universe has a Son. And
He, being the First begotten Word of God IS EVEN GOD [1:184]

Irenaeus:
Bishop of Lyons [c. 185 A.D.]:

... Jesus is Himself in His own
right, beyond all men who ever lived, GOD, LORD, KING ETERNAL, and the INCARNATE
WORD
[1:449] GOD, then WAS MADE MAN and the
Lord Himself save us [1:451] He IS
GOD for His name IMMANUEL indicates this [1:452] Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the
Living, WHO SPOKE TO MOSES... [1:467]

Clement
of Alexandria [c. 195 A.D.]:

He [Jesus] is God in the form of Man... THE WORD WHO IS GOD, Who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s
right hand. And with the Form of God, HE IS GOD [2:210]

Tertullian Carthage [c. 213 A.D.]- the first to coin the word “Trinity” (Latin- Trinitas, the
cognate of Greek- Triados)

“...In whom THE TRINITY [Trinitas], of the ONE DIVINITY:
FATHER, SON AND HE HOLY SPIRIT” [4:99 cf. Against Praxeas] This opened the ears
of CHRIST OUR GOD [3:715, cf. IBID]

From the above, it is interesting to
see that Mr. Ali and other Anti Trinitarians are nowhere to be found concerning
whether the Early Christian Church Fathers taught the doctrine of Trinity and
some of them most likely had been with some of the disciples [e.g. Ignatius]
and being with them even quoting what John wrote i.e. Jesus [the Word] is God.
This means that Jesus actually taught them so and all Muslim are wrong in
saying that the Bible has been corrupted because what we see from these
quotations is what we have today. So let me quote other Bible translations and
Greek scholars to further open the eyes of Mr. Ali Akbar:

BIBLE
TRANSLATIONS WHICH STATE THAT "THE WORD WAS GOD"

Douay -
"and the Word was God".

Rotherham -
"and the Word was God".

King James
Version - "the Word was God".

Jerusalem
Bible - "and the Word was God".

The New Life
Testament - "the Word was God".

The Berkley
Version - "and the Word was God".

New
Translation (Darby) - "the Word was God".

Modern King
James Version - "the Word was God".

Revised
Standard Version - "and the Word was God".

American
Standard Version - "and the Word was God".

The New
International Version - "the Word was God".

Numeric
English New Testament - "the Word was God".

The New
American Standard Bible - "and the Word was God".

The New
Testament in Basic English - "and the Word was God".

Young's
Literal Translation of the Bible - "and the Word was God".

The New
Testament in Modern Speech (Weymouth) - "and the Word was God".

The New
Testament in Modern English (Montgomer) - "and the Word was God".

The New
Testament in Modern English (Phillips "that word, was with God, and was
God".

THE WORDS OF GREEK SCHOLARS
CONCERNING THE JOHN 1:1 TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY BIBLE

A. T.
Robertson: "So in John 1:1 Theos en
ho Logos the meaning has to be the Logos
was God, -not God was the Logos."
A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis
(Baker Book House, p. 279.

E. M.
Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for Theos en ho Logos springs from a
reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the
Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.

C. K.
Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but
is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho Theos had been written it would have implied that no divine
being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel
According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 76.

C. H. Dodd:
"On this analogy, the meaning of - Theos
en ho Logos will be that the ousia
of ho Logos, that which it truly is,
is rightly denominated Theos... That
is the ousia of hoTheos (the personal
God of Abraham,) the Father goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect
paraphrase." "New Testament Translation Problems the bible
Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), P. 104.

Henry
Alford: "… the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in Theos en, Theos expresses that essence
which was His en arche:--that. He was very God. So that this first verse must
be connected thus: the Logos was from
eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's
Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II
Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681

Randolph 0.
Yeager: "The article with Logos
shows that to Logos is the subject of
the verb en and the fact that Theos is without the article designates
it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of Theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God… The Renaissance
New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 4.

Are your eyes opened now Mr. Ali? Or
do you still want more proofs that Jesus is God and indeed taught so??? Please
do more research and this time, make it vast not “Islamic minded”.

Mr. Ali again goes further to talk
concerning the corruption of the Bible, and then he quotes a verse in the
Qur’an that says “Woe! Then to those who
write the Book with there hands and say: This is from Allah” [Q.2:79]. I
still do not know how this very verse says that the Bible has been corrupted or
not from God. In fact, Mr. Ali made a fool of himself when he wrote that that
same “corrupted” book which is not from Allah prophesied the coming of Muhammad
[alongside some other scriptures belonging to religions he later regarded as
pagans]. What sort of hypocrisy is this? You use a scripture when it suits your
purpose and when it is no longer useful, you condemn it as “not from
Allah”.That’s very funny. Now, let us
assume this verse was actually talking about the corruption of the Bible. Your
Qur’an says "And dispute ye not with the people of the book [Christians and
Jews] but say: We believe in the
revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you."
[Q.29:46] what came down to the people of the book? From where did it come
down? From men above? If Q.2:79 were referring to the corruption of the Bible
[which you believe that Muhammad came to the world to replace], then why would
Muhammad tell you to believe in something already corrupted (since the manuscript used today predates Muhammad's period)? Doesn’t your own
Qur’an say: "There is none that can alter the words of Allah" [Q.6:34] (and according to you, the "tawrat" and "injil" were once Allah's words)?
If Muhammad was referring to the corruption of the Bible in that very verse you
quoted, then you have just created a fatal contradiction in your Qur’an.

In
the chapter one of his book titled “The Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be on
him) Foretold in Ancient Scriptures”, the first verse in the Bible he made
reference to as “a prophecy of his Prophet” was Deuteronomy 18:15-18 which says
[quoting the one he used]: “The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a
prophet FROM THE MIDST OF THEE, OF THY BRETHREN, LIKE UNTO THEE; unto him shall
ye harken. According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in
the day of assembly, saying, let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my
God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD
said unto me. They have well said that which they have spoken. I will raise
them up a prophet FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN, LIKE UNTO THEE and I will put my
words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him”
he then went on to say “our prophet is evidently foretold...” then was referring
to the “among their brethren” as the Ishmaelites... This is absolute
nonsense! He was very well able to see “among thy brethren” but not able
to see “from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto thee” from
the midst of who? Of course it is from the midst of the people he [by God’s
guidance] led out of Egypt- the Israelite. Was Muhammad an Israelite? Of course
not! Jesus even confirmed it that it was Him that Moses talked about –Luke
24:44 therefore, this argument is refuted! Mr. Ali went further to give the
very refutation to his argument, he said “in promising to raise up a
prophet, God tells Moses “I will raise up a prophet from among their brethren.”
But, according to Deuteronomy 34:10, there did not arise a Prophet since from
among Israel who was like unto Moses. There can be no doubt about the fact that
the promised prophet must have been Muhammad...”. This man just brought out
the very verse that even refuted his argument that is why somehow, he did not
quote the verse to the reader so that his reader will stand convinced that
since he quoted other verses in the Bible, therefore, he could not have been
wrong. Deuteronomy 34:10 does not say that “there will never be a Prophet like
Moses from Israel” this man loves to misquote that is why he refused to quote
what the verse actually said. What does it say? It says “THERE HAS NEVER
BEEN a Prophet in Israel like Moses; the LORD spoke with him FACE-TO-FACE...”
I’m very sure Mr. Ali has seen where the refutation is. The verse said “THERE
HAS NEVER BEEN” not “THERE WILL NEVER BE” and of course; it was saying that the
prophecy had not yet been fulfilled at that time. DID MUHAMMAD EVER SPEAK TO
ALLAH FACE TO FACE OR HAS MUHAMMAD EVER SEEN GOD?

Bukhari: Volume 9, Book 93, Number 477:
Narrated Masruq:

'Aisha said, "If anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen his Lord, he is
a liar, for Allah says: 'No vision can grasp Him.' (6.103) And if
anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen the Unseen, he is a liar, for
Allah says: "None has the knowledge of the Unseen but Allah."

Bukhari: Volume 6, Book 60, Number 378:
Narrated Masruq:

I said to 'Aisha, "O Mother! Did Prophet Muhammad see his Lord?" Aisha
said, "What you have said makes my hair stand on end ! Know that if
somebody tells you one of the following three things, he is a liar:
Whoever tells you that Muhammad saw his Lord,is a liar." Then Aisha
recited the Verse:

'No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. He is the
Most Courteous Well-Acquainted with all things.' (6.103) 'It is not
fitting for a human being that Allah should speak to him except by
inspiration or from behind a veil.' (42.51) 'Aisha further said, "And
whoever tells you that the Prophet knows what is going to happen
tomorrow, is a liar." She then recited:

'No soul can know what it will earn tomorrow.' (31.34) She added: "And
whoever tell you that he concealed (some of Allah's orders), is a liar."
Then she recited: 'O Apostle! Proclaim (the Message) which has been
sent down to you from your Lord..' (5.67) 'Aisha added. "But the Prophet
saw Gabriel in his true form twice."

This is very clear and obvious that Muhammad was not like
Moses but instead was even, from this description, less than Moses. Jesus, on
the other hand, has seen God [the Father] - John 1:18 [and made him know during
his incarnation-John 1:14 and 1 Timothy 3:16] and even greater than Moses –
Hebrews 3:1-6 it is very clear that Jesus is the fulfillment of that Prophecy.
He reads “Another prophecy of prophet Isaiah... “He saw two riders, one of
them was a rider upon an ass, and the other a rider upon a camel, he harkened
diligently with much heed” it was Isaiah who saw the riders in a vision. IN OUR
OPINION the above passage is the faithful rendering of the original Hebrew. In
the English Bible, however, it is translated thus: “he saw chariot of asses and
a chariot of camels, e.t.c.” the vulgate has it as follows: “he saw a chariot
of two horsemen, a rider upon an ass and a rider upon a camel, e.t.c” [quoting
Isaiah 21:7]...the rider upon the ass is Jesus Christ because he so made
entry into Jerusalem and the rider of the camel is meant the prophet of
Arabia,... the prophet Muhammad (peace be unto him!) entered into the Holy City
riding on a camel and ten thousand of his followers behind him” This is the
kind of person I like to refute! First and foremost, he quoted the whole verse
out of complete context and thank God he said IN HIS OPINION, that the Hebrew
he quoted was the original so I do not have to give that much shut. Had he said
that it was the actual original, then my response would have been disgraceful
to him. This very verse is neither a Prophecy of Jesus nor of Muhammad but the
attack of Babylon. Let’s take the whole chapter 21 of Isaiah bit-by-bit my
comments are in [ ]:

ANALYSING
ISAIAH 21:

1.THIS IS THE MESSAGE ABOUT
BABYLONIA: [why Babylonia? I don’t know... Let’s read
on] Like a whirlwind sweeping across the desert, disaster will come from a
terrifying land.

2.I have seen the vision of
betrayal and destruction. ARMY OF ELAM ATTACK! [Army
of Elam? Why Elam?] Army of Media, lay siege to the cities! [This sounds
like a literal war to me] God will put an end to the suffering which Babylon
has caused.

3.What I saw and heard in the
vision has filled me with terror and pain, pain like that of a woman in labour.

4.My head is spinning, and I am
trembling in fear. I have been longing for evening to come, but it brought me
nothing but terror [I still don’t understand
why Isaiah would be terrified if he was actually seeing the coming of two
Prophets except if he was seeing war coming AND if Babylon symbolized sin in
this passage, then why was Isaiah terrified at seeing its destruction?].

5.In the vision a banquet is ready:
rugs are spread for the guests to sit on. They are eating and drinking.
Suddenly the command rings out “officers prepare your shield!” [This
looks like they are waiting for some guests who are to come at the same time,
aren’t they?]

6.Then the LORD said to me “Go and
post a sentry, and tell him to
report what HE SEES [Hmn! It’s A MAN who is
to report what he sees and of course, he would not see one and wait for some
570 years to see another, would he?]

7.If he sees riders on horsebacks, tow by two, and riders on donkey and
camels, he is to OBSERVE THEM careful [He
is not to observe one then wait for 570 years to observe another. Why?]...{Emphasis
and caps mine}

Here's a little something from Answering Islam team:

Isaiah 21:
13 The burden upon Arabia.
In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge,
O ye travelling companies of Dedanim.
14 The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him
that was thirsty, they prevented with their bread him that fled.
15 For they fled from the swords, from the drawn sword,
and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war.
16 For thus hath the LORD said unto me, Within a year, according to the
years of an hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail:
17 And the residue of the number of archers, the mighty men of the
children of Kedar, shall be diminished:
for the LORD God of Israel hath spoken it.

Before I answer to some of the details of the Muslim argument included
below, let me urge you to read the wider context of this passage. This
is part of the general announcement of God's punishment on several
nations, which is listed in the chapters 13-24 of the Prophet Isaiah.
It is certainly not impossible to have a "positive" prophecy in the
midst of the oracles of judgment, but the whole context does for sure
not make that our expectation when we read through this whole sequence.
Nor do the words in this prophecy really look any different from all
the "Judgment of God on the nations" oracles that come before and after
this specific text. Let me first give you this text in an easier to
read modern translation. I would recommend you to get maybe the NIV
[New International Version] translation if you indeed are interested
to do more reading in the Bible. I also am not a native speaker of
English, and the KJV you are using is by now very archaic language
[since this translation was done in 1611 if I remember right].

Isaiah 21:
13 An oracle concerning Arabia:
You caravans of Dedanites, who camp in the thickets of Arabia,
14 bring water for the thirsty;
you who live in Tema, bring food for the fugitives.
15 They flee from the sword, from the drawn sword,
from the bent bow and from the heat of battle.
16 This is what the Lord says to me:
"Within one year, as a servant bound by contract would count it,
all the pomp of Kedar will come to an end.
17 The survivors of the bowmen, the warriors of Kedar, will be few."
The LORD, the God of Israel, has spoken.

The Muslim argument is indented in the following.

1. Here Isaiah is saying that Arabia is the site of this Prophecy or
incident, (Muhamad appeared in Arabia). Arabia is a clear name for
present day Arabia.

No problem with that. The problem is, that this is not a passage
about a prophet who will appear. There is no person singled out for
special mentioning. Yes it is about Arabia, and about the fact that
the Assyrians (?) will attack the Northern Arabian tribes and will
destroy their pomp and reduces their army to a small band. Sargon,
king of Assyria is mentioned in 20:1 and most of the judgements
described in these chapters are fulfilled in Sargon's military
advancements. And in 715 B.C. Sargon also attacked the Northern
Arabian tribes. This is probably the background / fulfillment to
the prophecy.

2. The prophecy speaks of " him that fled " (We know that Muhamad
fled from Mecca to Medina when the Pagan`s hostilities were very
serious and the Prophet and his followers were in great danger).
The Bible mentions Tema as a part of that prophecy. According to
a Bible dictionary, Tema is an Area close to a city called Medina
in the Arabian Penninsula, see J. Hasting dictionary of the Bible.

Yes, Tema is in Northen Arabia, but, if God wanted to make a clear
prophecy about Muhammad, why did he not mention Yathrib [the name
of the city of Medina before Muhammad]? I wonder why he did NOT say
Yathrib if he really meant Yathrib? It would have been just as easy
to say Yathrib as it was to say Tema.
Also, all these prophecies give the clear impression of near judgment,
and don't seem to be talking about something 1300 years away. Isaiah
was speaking as a prophet about 740-681 B.C. and these prophecies
seem to be spoken around 720 B.C. plus minus a number of years.

3. "fled from drawn swords" (Muhamad fled from Mecca while his
house was sourrounded by his deadly enemies who stood there,
drawn swords in hand. The striking thing is that the exact
situation of the Pagan meccan surrounding the prophet`s house
has happened. This is a recorded and undisputed history. This
Event or incedent was the beginning of what it was known as
Hejra where the Muslim calender starts).

Well, there is the phrase of "They flee ... from the heat of the battle"
in verse 15. Although Muhammad and his companions did flee from Mekka
to Medina, because their life was threatened, there was no battle at
this time. Their fear was assassination, but not a raging battle.

4. " whithin a year... all the glory of Kedar will fail... The
mighty men of Kedar shall diminish" This prophecy was fulfilled
in the Battle of Badr which occurred within a year from the
flight of Muhamad from Mecca to Medina,and in which battle the
Quraish of Mecca / Kedar. [Kedar is the son of Ishmael ] sustained
a crushing defeat, most of their mighty men fell.
The information that I have provide about that Period of Islamic
history is a documented historical facts tha appears in books
witten by Western, non-mulsim, and muslim writers. I am assuming
that you have a knowledge about that period of Islamic history
because its associated with the subject that your web site deals
with.

Is Kedar = Quraish? I am not so sure about that.
And though the Mekkan's were mainly Quraish as it seems, still,
it was the opposition to Muhammad that was defeated, not Quraish
as such. Mekka and the Quraish tribe as the custodians of Mekka were
blossoming again soon after it was claimed for the Muslims, something
that doesn't have any affinity to this prophecy either.

Please tell me what is the Bible view of that prophecy and how
was it was fulfilled in history. Who were the people who fullfied
it and what historical books that can support your answer.
I am searching for historical recorded facts that I can compare
the other point of view to that was question.

I don't have all the dictionaries here I might want to look up on
this. The footnotes in my Bible and the small commentary I have
suggest that the Assyrians under Sargon were defeating not only the
Northern Arab tribes around 715 B.C. but most of this wider area of
the Middle East. And that totally fits the whole series of prophecies
given in Isaiah 13-24.
If you would want to apply it to something else, then there would need
to be strong similarities identifying the prophecy with this other
incident and that is just not given.
There is not stress on "him who fled" in this prophecy, it is just
"a fugitive" as Young's literal translation has it.
It doesn't give the right destination of Medina, in fact it isn't about
any specific journey from point A to point B, it is about flight of an
army from the stronger army and that it happens in Northern Arabia and
the people of Tema [modern Teyman] are supposed to provide the fugitives
with food. Was that something they did for Muhammad? Not something that
I heard of either.
Okay, that is about all I can say at this point. Anybody with more
knowledge is invited to provide more details.
A more detailed discussion of
this text.

It is very clear that
this is not a Prophecy of Jesus or Muhammad but of something that took place
long before their advent. It is true that the term “Babylonia” could be
symbolic like that of the Book of Revelation but the book of Revelation
explained the meaning of what it was actually saying and my comment at the end
of verse four explains better. Babylonia, in this passage, is the Babylonia
city itself. When the city of Babylon was destroyed, history records that the
Army of Elam, Media, Persia [perhaps], Greece, e.t.c. were involved in its
destruction, in other words, fulfilling the prophecy. In the banquet, we see
that are spread for the guest [of verse 7] to sit on when they arrive [this
debunks the entirety of Mr. Ali’s claim because this verse is talking about an
event that will take place at once and is not saying that one will happen and
another will be subsequent]. Even the verse 7 of the one he says is, IN HIS
OPINION, the original says that the sentry “SAW them” in other words, at the
same time! Jesus and Muhammad did not come at the same time of course and the
siege talked about it verse 2 refutes it all. Was Jesus a warrior or what? I
don’t know about Muhammad but of course, Jesus never raised a sword to kill
anyone during his time on earth but was in fact beaten which is even a reverse
of the case of the above passage. It can be claimed that the verse above is
symbolical but the truth is that, from a careful study of the Bible, from
Isaiah to Jeremiah, one would notice that both of them talked mostly about the
capture of Jerusalem and the fall of Babylon even though there were instances
where Jesus was prophesied. Therefore, argument refuted!

He went on to talk about
the already refuted “Comforter issue” of Muhammad in the same page. Go to my
dialogue with Ibrahim in the chapter of “the Holy Spirit” and see the exact refutation
to this allegation.

After all the Bible
“prophecy” allegations, Mr. Ali then moved further to other scriptures such as
the Sutras [Buddhist scripture], the Vedas [Hindu scriptures] and e.t.c. I’m
not interested in trying to give any argument over those ones [I am not an Anti
Islam person so the refutation {or no refutation} stays with the owners of the
scriptures not me]. But wait a minute Mr. Ali, did you not call the Hindus and
Buddhists idol worshippers i.e. pagans or heathens? Now I see you saying that
your prophet was prophesied in their scriptures. Do you mean that your prophet
was prophesied in a pagan scripture?

[NOTE: He made mention of the
Torah {Jewish scriptures} which I did not talk about because it is part of the
Bible i.e. the Old Testament]

I’m very sure that by
now Mr. Ali and other readers are better convinced that your prophet, Muhammad
is nowhere in the Bible so you can shift those false assumptions to other
scriptures but as for the Bible, there is no place for you. I’m sorry.

1 comment:

This "Mr Ali"you refer to died a few years back whom is my great grandfather i do not like the way you speak of him in this post and would appreciate it if you removed it out of respect and its Mr Akbar as Ali is his first name if you were smart you would have noticed his name on the book Ali Akbar not Akbar Ali